Arguments for and againts dropping the atomic blomb in Japan?

Question

I can't find any "official" ones. I need some for and against so I can write an essay about where I stand on the subject. I'm not looking for you own opinions, I need ones that were said back in the day of WWII. Thanks alot again...

Answer 1

FOR:
The US had just spent billions developing bomb. Not using it would have made voters angry.

Japan was vowing to fight to the last man, woman, and child to defend their homeland. They showed this in the defense of Okinawa. Using the bomb probably saved lives on both sides.

The US recognized that bomb would be a big factor in postwar balance of power. It Wanted to demonstrate its power in a wartime situation.

The US wanted to end the war as quickly as possible before the Soviet Union could enter and possibly invade Japan. If they had been able to do so we might have a situation in Japan similar to that in Korea. There might be a communist North Japan and a democratic South Japan. As it was the Soviets were able to seize several Japanese islands which Russia still holds.

AGAINST:

The Bomb was developed to counter a known German atomic program. By the time it was ready, Germany was already defeated. There was no intelligence that Japan had a credible program.

The after effects of using the bomb were horrific. Mostly civilians died and many died lingering deaths or suffered for years from radiation exposure.

At the time the US had a very small supply of Uranium and Plutonium. If the Japanese had not surrendered the US would have been hard put to follow up with more atomic strikes and would have had to invade anyway.

In spite of the Japanese resolve to fight on, their ability to do so was probably running out. A siege and conventional bombing campaign might have had the same result though it would have taken longer.

It has been recorded that some top generals such as Eisenhower and Patton were appalled by the use of the bomb for various reasons.

=======================

Not an argument but there is this to consider. The bomb was developed at the direction of Roosevelt but he died before it was ready. Truman was never told about the project until he became president after Roosevelt's death. It was his decision to use it. What would Roosevelt decided if he had lived.

Answer 2

The usually-remembered arguments of the time which were in favour of using the A-bomb were:

1. Invasion of Japan with conventional troops would have cost huge U.S. casualties.
2. Japanese blind loyalty to their Emperor, as evidenced by the Kamikaze pilots, indicated that resistance to invasion would have continued long past the point where any other nation would have surrendered, so U.S. casualties would have been even greater.
3. The Japanese had started the war with unprecedented dishonour, attacking Pearl Harbour and only declaring war afterwards. Roosevelt's unforgettable phrase "a day that will live in infamy" was still echoing around the U.S., and not disposing the military to be much concerned about the scale of Japanese casualties, even civilian ones.
4. Nazi death camps and Japanese atrocities against POWs in Burma were known of by this time, so there wasn't much of an argument on humanitarian grounds - the victors would still have cleaner hands than the vanquished.

Answer 3

It's true we lost the moral high ground after use of the nukes on Japan, but looking at what Truman faced in 1945, i probably would've done the same thing. To compare the moral depravity of state sponsored genocide where the death ovens at Aushwitz/Birkenau were topping out at 2,600 per day or 80,000 killed per month and the aerial bombardment of civilians is looking at different scales.

The "Final Solution" was the policy of only one country during the last century, and it wasn't the U.S. My beef is with the multi-national business cartels that allowed it to happen, the top being IG Farben (now BASF, Bayer, among others).

Not only did they finance Adolf, they supplied him with Zyclon B for use in the death camps. The American side of the company was not tried at Nuremburg, although they were just as culpable, go figure.

The fire bombing of Dresden by the 8th Air Force and RAF Bomber Command, caused the destruction of 15 square kms including 14,000 homes, 72 schools, 22 hospitals, 18 churches, etc. with a conservative estimate of around 30,000 civilians killed. At the time, the Germans used it as propaganda to advocate against following the Geneva conventions and to attack people's perception of the Allies claim to absolute moral superiority. The military claimed the railroad center was a military target, which it was, altho it was up and running a week later. Feb 1945 was only 3 months away from May 1945 (end of the Euopean war), the outcome of the war was not in doubt, so why bomb a 'cultural' medieval city of 600,000?

The firebombing of Dresden and nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, genocide should also include civilian victims of aerial bombardment. Even after saying this, i still don't think the Allies were close to the moral depravity of the Nazis and their wholesale holocaust of the Euopean Jews.

Answer 4

the biggest situation Truman had became the eastern cultural attitude in direction of renounce. merely placed, any honorable eastern guy might somewhat die than shame himself, his ancestors or the Emperor of Japan via surrendering. This additionally explains the explanation that the eastern militia considered Allied POW's as under adult men and abused them mercilessly. It became already shown that invasion of the maim eastern Islands may be an somewhat complicated nightmare for the U. S. evidenced via ways tenaciously their forces held onto little rock islands like Iwo Jima,Guadalcanal and Okinawa. in the process the firebombings of Tokyo that they had somewhat some time to provide up yet nevertheless hung on. Even after the two A-Bombs have been dropped first on Hiroshima,then on Nagasaki days later it nevertheless took over each week for them to settle on that they have been ultimately outmatched.At renounce many tears of shame have been shed and somewhat some militia officers and politicians committed suicide somewhat than stay in the process the defeat.

Answer 5

View at that time: Japanese fighters were tough dudes as allied losses in pacific island fighting showed -- losses to allied troops would have been vast. Voila, the bomb. Don't forget Vonnegut and Slaughter House 5; we fire bombed Dresden, Germany which we knew meant killing everything, and I mean everything, by design. So not that big of a step to A-bomb in Japan. If interested read about the crew of the Enola Gay that dropped the first bomb. Did a real head trip on those dudes.

Answer 6

For: end the war with one big strike rather than having to deal with many more battles

Against: the killing of civilians and long-term damage to Japan